Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

An earlier posting draws attention to the fact that the father of Inge Lotz is now offering a R1million reward for anyone who could find the real killer(s). The posting also refers to an earlier news report: We know who killed Inge Lotz.

A remarkable comment, written by a Private Investigator working on the Inge Lotz case, was posted on this blog today at 12:32PM, but Blogger was acting weird again and promptly dumped the comment in its spam folder.

The comment reveals that the reason why the Police and Hawks are not taking action against a suspect that has already been positively identified, is because there is an ongoing Civil Action against the Minister of Police. Therefore – it would possibly be detrimental to the Defendant (Minister of Police) if an arrest was made now.

The original comment has now been un-spammed and can be viewed here, but stay on this page as I’ve copy/pasted it here, exactly as received:

---Begin Comment---

The Police and Hawks are aware of who the “Suspect” is in the Inge Lotz murder! In fact I have supplied the Police with an “Eye-witness” Affidavit as to the IDENTITY of the MURDERER!

As a Private Investigator as mandated by Mr. Louis van der Vyver to IDENTIFY Inge Lotz’s MURDERER, I conducted the necessary investigation and then IDENTIFIED an Eye-witness to the Murder of Inge Lotz.

Having supplied the said Affidavit to Major General Mark Magadlela, Piet Viljoen was appointed by Magadlela to investigate the “validity” of the Affidavit. Viljoen then arranged that the Eye-witness undergo a Polygraph test, which the said Eye-witness PASSED without ANY DECEPTION SHOWN.

The reason why the Police are NOT taking action against the IDENTIFIED SUSPECT is because there is an ongoing Civil Action against the Minister of Police and to make an arrest now, would possibly be detrimental to the Defendant (Minister of Police) case.

I would like to meet with and exchange views with Jaccie (family member of Juanita Lotz), who earlier suggested that the family had their “suspicions.”

Anthony Altbeker’s book, Fruit of a poisoned tree is a MUST read for anybody who is interested in the court case against Fred.

Daryl Els

---End Comment---

Oh, the wickedness in high places…

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. – Ephesians 6:12

i have a great interest in this crime, i have read the judgement many times and all related articles including the book Fruit of a poisoned tree!! it was a good book..however i am still dissapointed that this case has not come to a close...if i were to guess who it was without looking at any more information than i already have it would be their mutual friend...the waiting at the house for fred after the murder became known.

There are a number of people who have been following this case for a number of years fairly closely, every couple of months it gets some traction with all kinds of conspiracy theories but it remains unsolved. People expected Piet Byleveld to draw a swift close to the case after he announced his involvement but by his own admission, it's turned out to be one of the most difficult cases he's worked on. I have my own theories which can be explained with complete motive but these range from the plausible to as wildly fantasised as the case made against Fred. The truth is that critical evidence was tampered with in order to strengthen the state's fabricated case - similarly, that critical evidence has since been destroyed (either through negligence or purposefully, there is a civil case worth millions to be awarded after all). With the lack of any real evidence, I highly doubt the real killer will ever be revealed. Moreover, the longer I have followed this case, the more I believe that there is no conspiracy, mystery, lovers triangle involved here... and a reflection of our own, conservative beliefs about our society refusing to accept that Inge was most likely just another victim of a random burglary resulting in murder. A statistic to be precise. In light of this, the murderer has long since moved on but the death of a beautiful young white South African girl in an affluent suburb continues to haunt our collective consciousness.

@Anonymous The reason i believe it was someone "close" to the victim is because of the way she was dressed when the murder occurred and the position of the cadaver. There are other anomalies as well, such as the fact that her laptop and other valuable were completely undisturbed. the murder weapon is missing and was probably cleaned in the bathroom, thus the assailant took time to clean himself and his murder weapon yet chose not to steal a single item from the flat?? it seems absurd to me...im almost certain it was one of her friends. i would like to expound on one particular theory but it would not work without mentioning her friends names and this would land me in trouble. This case is not going anywhere and if we not careful we could end up with a "zodiac" situation.

Hi TIA I have just finished reading your ebook which I found very interesting. You obviously were well trained in your field. I know you are no longer keeping your blog up with regular postings but I have a question. There is a website http://www.truth4inge.com/ which I have been reading and wondered if you have an opinion on the contents. There is a theory called the Dunning-Kruger effect where an unskilled individual believes that their skills are far superior than they are. I know this to be true in the accounting field where there is so much information that one tends to specialize in specific areas. I am sure this applies in forensics as well. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

@Anon (Aug 29) – The website (truth4inge.com) publishes the opinions of two amateur forensic investigators, Calvin and Thomas Mollett (brothers). I do not know these brothers but after reading up on their unprofessional and unethical ramblings (thanks to your link) I have absolutely no respect for them – and I don’t care how many ‘believers’ they happen to have. In my opinion they’ve placed way too much emphasis on inconsequential facets of the case in their efforts to make Fred van der Vyver look guilty, thereby adding to the confusion that already exists. The fact that they’ve tried to smear the names and reputation of three highly qualified international experts, AND that they’ve also refused to accept the findings of the IAI, the oldest and largest forensic organization in the world, makes me wonder who they’re really working for!?!

Yes, the theory called the Dunning-Kruger effect can apply to any field of expertise including forensics, and especially in cases where self-styled ‘experts’ do not specialize in one specific field only but dabble in a variety of semi-related but diverse scientific fields.

Thanks for popping in and apologies for the delay in responding to your questions.

TIA - Care to substantiate your reference to our “unprofessional and unethical ramblings” with “too much emphasis on inconsequential facets of the case” by examples and by refuting any of our findings by facts? Since you sound like the resident go-to-guy, you should know something about Popper. So easy to criticise without facts. So easy. But pathetic.

Fortunately lions do not care about the opinions or respect of sheep. So I really don’t care about your lack of respect for what we are doing.

By the way, it seems you know nothing about the IAI’s decision. Please inform yourself first before making sheep-like assumptions. The fact that they are “the oldest and largest forensic organization in the world” does not make them any less corrupt, covering for corrupt members.

@Thomas Mollett – If you really don’t care about my lack of respect for what you are doing, then why are you reacting in anger? … Why did you even bother commenting on this post? I initially had a strong suspicion that Anon (Aug 29) may possibly be you, or someone whose true intentions had something to do with promoting your website.

Whatever the case, it now seems that I (a sheep – as you’ve implied) is being lured into your ‘den’. Seeing that you do not care about the opinions of sheep, I see no reason why I should then squander precious time substantiating my viewpoints on this matter.

For the record…I received a message today from the person who made the original anonymous comment above (Aug 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM). I was requested not to publish it. The message confirmed that the Aug 29 comment was NOT submitted by Mollet.

Also for the record…The following extract was taken from a media report (IOL News) dated 24 August 2013:

Three international experts linked to one of the most publicised trials in South Africa - that of the murder of Stellenbosch mathematics student Inge Lotz - have been cleared by the International Association for Identification (IAI), quashing claims by amateur forensic investigator brothers Calvin and Thomas Mollett…Click here to read the rest.

TIA - You should be careful to make assumptions based on what you read in papers (especially), and to base you opinions on it, especially if they don’t even bother to contact all those involved. If you familiarize yourself with aspects of the case, our investigation and our petitions at the IAI, then you will see that we have every reason not to accept the IAI’s ‘decision’. In fact, we have every reason to believe that they are covering for their members. They did not rule on what we asked them to investigate and offered no reasons or explanations, so why must we accept it?

Read the full story and our response here:

http://www.truth4inge.com/iai_cover-up.html

We stand by every word in our petitions regarding the members and will continue to pursue it. In fact, the IAI’s clear as daylight side-step and cover-up is probably the strongest underwriting that we are onto something.

Thanks for your “warning”, but I’m very comfortable with what we are doing. The truth is a strong ally, you know. The fact that some can’t handle the truth does not detract from this.

TIA, I’ve noticed you’ve previously provided the link to the media report in IOL News Fraud and lies alleged in Inge probe, but to add to the record I’ve taken the liberty of copy-pasting a most relevant portion of the article which is self-explanatory:

The Molletts have complained to the International Association of Identification (IAI) in Los Angeles, US, that it was “undisputed” that Van der Vyver’s fingerprints linked him to the crime, despite this being rejected in the Cape High Court.

They initially made this complaint using the names Henry and John McAlpine but later changed their names to Thomas and Calvin Mollett, a move that smacked of dishonesty, according to local forensic analyst Dr David Klatzow, who worked on the Lotz case.

“The Molletts are committing fraud. They signed to the association as McAlpines. They are threatening people,” said Klatzow.

Van der Vyver’s defence advocates have submitted arguments to the International Association of Identification saying the Molletts were “deceitful”, “fraudulent” and were “telling blatant lies” that were “grossly defamatory”.

I hope that the Production and Televising of the TRUTH behind the INGE LOTZ Murder will put to rest ALL SPECULATION as to the IDENTITY OF THE TRUE MURDERER! The only TV Producer with the "backbone" to make a Documentary about the INGE LOTZ Murder is a Producer from the BBC! After "viewing" of this programme, I am CERTAIN that even the Constitutional Court will have to revisit the finding, AS THERE WAS AN EYE-WITNESS to the Murder, which Adriaan Trollip and his Investigating Team, "FORCED INTO THE BACKGROUND" and "OBSCURITY!" Trollip, registered a Criminal Case against the "eye-witness" and myself, for DEFEATING THE ENDS OF JUSTICE! The Investigator of this case, submitted a REPORT to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Western Cape, suggesting that the "eye-witnesses" account of events SHOULD FURTHER BE INVESTIGATED! The response from the DPP was: "I DECLINE TO PROSECUTE!" WHY?Daryl Els

@ Thomas MollettThis all looks very impressive, but the fact remains – these conclusions contribute zero towards any closure in this case. The defence team succeeded in casting doubt as to the true origin of the prints on the DVD. They claimed - the prints were lifted from a drinking glass. Some experts corroborated this claim while others refuted it… So what!?!

While I can comprehend why so much attention is now being given to the print evidence (Folien 1) as it is the only evidence linking Fred to the crime scene and no other suspect has been arrested yet… In the end the respective conclusions of various experts on this issue mean absolutely nothing. Why? Because, and due to police incompetence, they were never granted the opportunity to examine the original evidence on the DVD cover.

The bottom line is this : The standard protocols of evidence collection and evidence preservation were not followed -- probably due to haste, inexperience, and perhaps work overload as well. The DVD cover was a vital piece of evidence which should have been treated with far more care. It should never have been returned to the video outlet at all!

Unfortunately, the clock cannot be turned back and no amount of money or speculation is going to solve matters. It is time that we accept the fact that the police possibly arrested the wrong suspect and that the disputed prints in all probability came from a drinking glass. (Fred’s prints were all over the place, because he lived there.)

We should also take into consideration that the State wanted to withdraw the fingerprint evidence and that it was Fred’s defence Advocate who insisted it be admitted. They would never have done so if they knew the evidence was going to incriminate their client.

By the way…Prof Visser, who concludes that the print of the left index finger came from a flat surface and was straight and not bent when it came in contact with the object, admits in the opening paragraph of his report that he “preferred to work with the photo taken on 31/05/2005… in spite of it not being of the highest quality and nor sufficient resolution for investigating.” (Own emphasis added in bold). This opening statement already disqualifies his conclusions… Henceforth, no Judge or Prosecutor will even bother reading the rest of the report.

Thanks for your post. I think we all agree that the police messed this up – and this started the moment 20 officers trampled the scene. And yes, there were procedural mistakes made as well. However, we must just be very careful to fall for the oldest trick in the book by a defence team, and that is to blame everything on the police – and in the process divert attention from the real issues. I’m not going to go into great lengths, but let us just for once and all get the return of the DVD cover covered.

When you take a lift from an item, the lift becomes your evidence – not the item. You can throw the item away as it lost its evidentiary value. It is contaminated. There is NO rule that they should keep it. They take lifts off 1000s of items, and they cannot keep everything. And now please pay attention: at that stage they did not know how important the DVD cover would become. The DVD cover only became especially important when Fred’s prints on it were matched to his exclusion prints 28 days later. Before then the DVD lift was just one of many other lifts. It was not more important or less important than any of the other 9 lifts. They also only later realised the significance of it in terms of the fact that it can put someone on the scene in a specific time frame. So it is easy now to make a big fuss of it in hindsight – at that stage there was no need to keep the cover – BUT yes, it would have been handy if they had kept it. And I will gladly concede that one can even expect that they did keep it. Just also remember, that it was not standard procedure to take photos, and no photos of any prints were taken.

OK, but let us deal with the bottomline. The lift is now disputed and we do not have the cover. As far as we are concerned one should go and look at all factors, context and evidence, and see if there is any reason to doubt the police’s version. Science tells us the lift was not taken from a drinking glass – there are various sworn testimonies confirming the process – we can put Booysens’ finger on the lift, confirming a flat, light and thin object with something like plastic over – looking at previous lifts of Swartz we see it is 100% in line with his normal methods. Nothing funny or different about Folien 1. I’m keeping it short, but in short: There is no reason to doubt the police’s version. The defence came in and fabricated a new theory – if that is gone (which is gone now) then you can only go back to the cover.

Just question Mr. Elsden – where is the drinking glass from which Folien 1 was lifted? Where, please tell me? Up to this day this mysterious glass could never be produced.

I cannot see how this is irrelevant. Test are ongoing and already there are overwhelming indication that the lift simply came from the DVD cover just as the police said. This is not irrelevant.

Irrelevant? At least two of the lead defence experts said Folien 1 came from a drinking glass. Just for the sake of the argument, if they were wrong – is that irrelevant?

You want to discredit Prof. Visser’s report simply because he stated (and honestly declared) which version of many he used – but what do you make of the fact that Wertheim fabricated a whole experiment in his report? He submitted a fraudulent report to a High Court – want to challenge me on this? Take his and Zeelenberg’s findings out of the case, and ask yourself again if it is irrelevant if they are wrong?

Quickly back top Prof. Visser. It seems, just like Klatzow, you have things to say about the case (which is your good right) but did not really do your own work on it – if you did you will know that there are hundreds of images of Folien 1. Some shows this better – some show that better. Fact is, Prof. Visser could have used any image of Folien 1 and he would have arrived at the same conclusion. Because let me put it to you simply: You can have any image you want, the lines on Folien 1 are not concentric arcs and the therefore cannot be from a conical drinking glass. End of story. We have another physicist agreeing on this. And any person. with basic knowledge of science will see this in a blink. If you have a problem with the rules of nature then please take it up with the One who made the rules, not us. Wertheim and Zeelenberg had no idea of or respect for science, let alone geometry. You are also of course more than welcome to refute Visser’s findings on the basis of the lower quality image used – and why you feel it impacted his finding. Read what he says in the context of his report, then you will grasp. Trying to shoot him down on this a bit lame. He did not say it was not good enough simply not the best one. Maybe it was because that particular one showed the minutia better. Whatever, pleaser do not take cheap swipes.

Dixon’s highly suspect and up to the point of being fraudulent report lead the prosecution to withdraw the fingerprint evidence. In the same way they advised Fred to show the police the hammer himself rather than to be asked for it, bringing back the fingerprint evidence would show a lot of confidence and “innocence” from the defence’s side – after all Wertheim and Dixon just confirmed the glass – so who would fight them, they probably thought. Nobody from the lame prosecution really stood up, so they took the gap. And they (the defence) needed the fingerprints to shout fabrication – to make their case stronger. Mr. Elden, you should know something about defence tactics, surely.

To conclude: There is nothing to “accept” other than the fact that this case is far from over. We can now without any shadow of a doubt say that there is no lip print on Folien 1 (many overseas forensic experts’ reviews on this), that Fred’s hammer (or an exact similar one) fits the head wounds (and that the autopsy report is wrong – confirmed by pathologists and scientists), and that various defence experts were wrong. That Fred lied about his movements the night of the 16th (and this can be proved black on white). This puts this this case in a whole new light and there is some explaining that is needed to be done. And nothing about this is irrelevant.

We of course welcome any person with integrity to do their own objective research – and/or to review what we put on the table.

You have a rather nasty habit of making irrational assumptions which tend to upset people, for example, by assuming that I was trying to discredit Prof. Visser’s report and that it was “a bit lame” on my part and that I should “not take cheap swipes”… Geeezzz who the hell do you think you are?

All I did was point out that Prof. Visser’s opening statement will disqualify his conclusions in the eyes of a Judge or Prosecutor. (I concede - I should have perhaps said, “possibly” disqualify) But, nowhere did I say nor imply that I (Glenn) refute Visser’s findings on the basis of the lower quality image used. You just assumed I did! Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough that the word ‘impressive” used in the first sentence was a direct reference to Prof Visser’s report. BTW -- I am not qualified to corroborate or refute his findings. If you keep reading you will hopefully understand my reasoning.

Some of the comments you’ve made reveal a lack of knowledge or understanding on matters concerning crime investigation, evidence, forensics, court procedures, and the protocols involved - while other comments you’ve made are 100% true, but largely from a South African perspective – a country whose police farce unfortunately cares two-hoots about incorporating any International or even National accreditation system into their police functions.

BTW: Not even the SA Police Forensic Science Lab is in compliance with any credible Quality Management System that meets international norms – for example, ISO guide 17025. Back in the old days we were nearing the final stages of the process -- moments before the criminal Jackie Selebi and his cronies took charge and stuffed-up the entire process. We also had external watchdogs constantly on our backs - such as Dr. Klatzow, for example, who were forever criticizing us publicly, mostly with the ulterior motive of promoting their own names. Why do I get the feeling you are doing exactly the same here – playing on people’s emotions?

I don’t want to ridicule you Thomas, so please don’t take offence when I correct you on certain issues. For starters… When you lift prints from an item, both the lift AND the item should be treated as evidence. Every single piece of evidence as it was found on the scene MUST be methodically documented by means of photography and/or video, complimented by detailed notes and sketches. This is the standard procedure in most civilized countries, even if it means keeping the scene cordoned-off for months on end.

The item CANNOT be thrown away on the basis of a mere assumption that it has (or never will have) any evidentiary value. Obviously evidence cannot be retained forever, but then there should at least be checklists in place that prevents disposing of evidence too soon. That the SA Police have NO RULES governing these simple processes is deplorable to say the least! It is thus no wonder that defence teams in high-profile murder cases are able to shred police testimony and evidence to bits with relative ease.

Please don’t take what I’ve said above and go yank it out of context… Bear in mind also that there are individual specialists and analysts in this country who are highly qualified in various fields and who do adhere to some form of quality management system, whether it is through International or National accreditation bodies. The expenses involved in accreditation and membership are normally paid for out of their own pockets – and not the government. For many it has taken a lifetime to get accredited and to build a reputation.

This may come as a surprise to you, but it is not unusual that experts sometimes reach different conclusions when facts are in dispute. It boils down to healthy competing versions of the facts - which in the end assist the court to see the bigger picture. Therefore, when a court rules that an expert's testimony is reliable it does not necessarily mean that contradictory expert testimony is unreliable. When resolving a dispute the court scrutinizes not only the principles and methods used by the various experts, but also whether those principles and methods have been properly applied to the facts of the case. It goes without saying that the expert’s qualifications and experience also play a huge role, hence the reason why their testimony always begins with this aspect. I can go on-and-on but the bottom line is -- when an expert delivers conflicting testimony on a dubious piece of evidence the court initially rejected, in the hope of convincing a court to exclude the expert's testimony of another he/she is, in the eyes of THE COURT (not mine), swimming in treacherous waters. In civil matter things work a little differently, but we won’t go into that now.

No one – not you, not me, and not any other expert anywhere on this planet, no matter how qualified they are, has the right to publicly declare they’ve proved this or that “without any shadow of a doubt,” as you’ve remarked in your concluding statement. It remains a mere opinion and there are certain admissibility requirements that need to be met before it will carry any weight in a court of law. The onus of proving the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, lies with the State.

I can carry on ad infinitum but I hope these few words will help you understand why there are professional people out there who feel that you’re dabbling in conspiracy-type pseudoscience. They will thus not give your cause one grain of substance by engaging in discussion with you, and DEFINITELY NOT after you’ve defamed their names.

I sincerely hope some good comes out of this mess, but it’s one mess I don’t want to be part of.

It’s late in the year and we all need a rest. So I’ll keep it short. We are not in popularity contest and it is all about the facts. We can go on about police conduct and admissibility and all of that, but in the end it is all about the truth.

What I’m also just saying, yes mistakes were made, but that should not make us “accept” this or that. We can always just ask what we would have been happy to “accept” if Inge was our daughter. When we’re unsure we can’t just say e.g. “it most possibly came from a glass”. You make sure as far as you can. If two expert witnesses were wrong, it is highly relevant. If there was fraud with evidence, then it is highly relevant.

BTW: Do you think they needed to keep the basin, security gate and door too? If they take a lift from a car, do they need to keep the car? (Having said that I think it was stupid that they did not keep the cover.) (And we can argue about what they should or should not have done forever, or what was protocol or not, the point I’m trying to make is that the fact that they did not keep the cover should not mean the end of the story.)

All I can say for now, is that we are expecting more high level reviews – especially from overseas experts, and are conducting further research which should have been 101 for the investigators and experts at the time. This will among other sort out the last remaining questions somebody like Klatzow has (re the formation of the lines in Folien 1). (I differ from you that something can’t be proven beyond doubt – for example, a conical glass can only leave concentric arcs – if it doesn’t, no conical glass. The results of repeated practical test can also go a long way. It is easy to disprove a lip and confirm a a latex on plastic print for example by way of repeated tests. Obviously it also about what is reasonable to believe.)

I'm quite comfy about what we say about the experts. Those suspecting us of "dabbling with conspiracy type pseudoscience", well, they are most welcome to present scientific arguments to support their assumption.

Latest 5 Featured Posts:

Operation Vula, its Secret Safari, and Zuma’s band of comrades - Dec. 2013
During 1986 the ANC launched an underground operation called Operation Vula. A lesser-known fact is that it continued to operate after Nelson Mandela's release in February 1990, and for three years after his speech in August 1990 when he reiterated the total commitment of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe and the SACP to the Groote Schuur Minute.

Heritage Day Photographs (Voortrekker Monument) - Sept. 2013
This posting includes a few photographs taken on Heritage Day 2013. The posting introduces an unusual but beautiful new structure called QUO VADIS? (with the question mark) which I’m sure many readers have never heard of.

The Yellow-Bucket Marula Tree: A Mystery Solved! - Oct. 2013
I came across a rather strange phenomenon one day while travelling along the R561 route between Tolwe and Baltimore in the Limpopo province of South Africa. A small yellow bucket was attached high-up in a branch of a Marula tree, hence the name of this posting. It’s a real funny story which I’m sure most readers will enjoy - as much as I enjoyed compiling the article - (with illustrations).

Pretoria’s Monument for Victims of Terrorism - July 2013
Many people (including myself) had almost forgotten about a noteworthy monument in Pretoria that stood at the entrance of the old Munitoria building on the corner of Van der Walt and Vermeulen Streets (now renamed Lilian Ngoyi and Madiba Streets). When the Munitoria building was demolished on 7 July 2013 nobody could tell me whether the monument was still standing or not, so I decided to go look for myself.

Remembering The Battle of Delville Wood - July 2013
14 July marks a day when the South African 1st Infantry Brigade got engaged in the 1916 (WW1) Battle of the Somme, in France. The battle was one of the largest of World War I, in which more than a million men were wounded or killed, making it one of humanity's bloodiest battles. One specific encounter during this battle, known as The Battle of Delville Wood, is of particular importance to South Africa. The posting includes a comprehensive article (with pictures) compiled and written by Petros Kondos.